Re: Fix for tablename in targetlist
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Fix for tablename in targetlist |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 29912.990283831@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Fix for tablename in targetlist (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Fix for tablename in targetlist
Re: Fix for tablename in targetlist Re: Fix for tablename in targetlist |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > Bruce Momjian writes: >> This patch fixes the problem by generating an error in the parser: >> >> test=> select pg_class from pg_class; >> ERROR: You can't use a relation alone in a target list. > Maybe it's the parser that's getting it wrong. What if pg_class has a > column called pg_class? Not an issue: the ambiguous name will be resolved as a column name, and it will be so resolved before this code executes. We do know at this point that we have an unadorned relation name; the question is what to do with it. I had a thought this morning that raising an error may be the wrong thing to do. We could instead choose to expand the name into "pg_class.*", which would take only a little more code and would arguably do something useful instead of useless. (I suspect that the fjoin stuff that still remains in the backend was originally designed to support exactly this interpretation.) Of course, if we did that, then "select huge_table;" might spit back a lot of stuff at you before you remembered you'd left off the rest of the query ;-) regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: